We must here consider the difference between the form of Christ’s
expositions as given by the first three Evangelists, and as recorded by
John. Some
recent writers have found an irreconcilable opposition between them both of form
and substance; and have concluded therefrom either that John, in reproducing the
discourses of Christ from memory, involuntarily blended his own subjective views
with them, and thus presented doctrines which a real disciple could not at the time
have apprehended; or that some one else at a later period, and not John, was the
author of this Gospel. They contrast the thoroughly practical bearing of the Sermon
on the Mount with (what they call) the mystical character of the discourses recorded
by John. They find every thing in the former simple and intelligible, while the
latter abounds in paradoxes, and seems to study obscurity. Moreover, the latter
is almost destitute of parables; a form of eloquence not only national, but also
characteristic of Christ, judging from his discourses as given in the other Gospels.

But let any one only yield himself to the impression of the Sermon on the Mount,
and then ask himself whether it be probable that a mind of the loftiness, depth,
and power which that discourse evinces, could have employed only one mode of teaching?
A mind which swayed not only simple and practical souls, but also so profoundly
speculative an intellect as that of Paul, could not but have scattered the elements
of such a tendency from the very first. We cannot but infer, from the irresistible
power which Christianity exerted upon minds so diversely constituted and cultivated,
that the sources of that power lay combined171171 We should believe this even if we
were to admit Weisse’s view, viz., that the basis of this Gospel was a collection
of the λὸγια τοῠ κυρίου made by John, and afterward wrought by another hand into
the form of a historical narrative. But Weisse’s critical processes seem to
me
to be entirely arbitrary. John’s Gospel is altogether (with the exception of a few passages which are suspicious both on external
and internal
grounds) a work of one texture, not admitting of critical decomposition. In Matthew,
not only internal signs, but also historical traditions, when considered without
prejudice, seem to distinguish the original and fundamental composition from the
later revision of the work. On the other hand, the author in whom we first find
the tradition referred to (Papias, Euseb., iii., 39) makes mention of no such thing
in regard to John’s Gospel. He must have known the fact, had it been so, living
as he did in Asia Minor. Some adduce Papias’s silence about John’s Gospel as a testimony
against its genuineness; but his object, most likely, was to give in formation in
regard to those parts of the narrative whose origin was not so well known in that
part of the country; whereas John’s Gospel was fresh in every one’s memory there.111in Him whose self-revelation was the origin of Christianity
itself. Moreover, the other Gospels are not wanting in apparently paradoxical expressions
akin to the peculiar tone of John’s Gospel, e. g., “Let the dead bury their dead.”172172 Had this expression occurred in John, it might have been cited as
a specimen of “Alexandrian mysticism.”
Nor will an attentive observer find in John alone expressions of Christ intended
to increase, instead of to remove the offence which carnal minds took at his doctrine.
We repeat, again. that the words and acts of the true Christ could not have been
free from paradoxes; and from this, indeed, it may have been that the Pharisees
were led to report that he had lost his senses.

Still, it is true, that such passages
are given by John much more abundantly than the other Evangelists. But there is
nothing in his Gospel purely metaphysical or unpractical; none of the spirit of
the Alexandrian-Jewish theology; but every where a direct bearing upon the inner
life, the Divine communion which Christ came to establish. Its form would have been
altogether different had it been composed, as some suppose, in the second century,
to support the Alexandrian doctrine of the Logos, as will be plain to any one who
takes the trouble to compare it with the writings of that age that have come down
to us The discourses given in the first three Gospels, mostly composed of separate
maxims, precepts, and parables, all in the popular forms of speech, were better
fitted to be handed down by tradition than the more profound discussions which have
been recorded by the beloved disciple who hung with fond affection upon the lips
of Jesus, treasured his revelations in a congenial mind, and poured them forth to
fill up the gaps of the popular narrative. And although it is true that the image
of Christ given to us in this Gospel is the reflection of Christ’s impression upon
John’s peculiar mind and feelings, it is to be remembered that these very peculiarities
were obtained by his intercourse with, and vivid apprehension of, Christ himself.
His susceptible nature appropriated Christ’s life, and incorporated it with his
own.

171 We should believe this even if we
were to admit Weisse’s view, viz., that the basis of this Gospel was a collection
of the λὸγια τοῠ κυρίου made by John, and afterward wrought by another hand into
the form of a historical narrative. But Weisse’s critical processes seem to
me
to be entirely arbitrary. John’s Gospel is altogether (with the exception of a few passages which are suspicious both on external
and internal
grounds) a work of one texture, not admitting of critical decomposition. In Matthew,
not only internal signs, but also historical traditions, when considered without
prejudice, seem to distinguish the original and fundamental composition from the
later revision of the work. On the other hand, the author in whom we first find
the tradition referred to (Papias, Euseb., iii., 39) makes mention of no such thing
in regard to John’s Gospel. He must have known the fact, had it been so, living
as he did in Asia Minor. Some adduce Papias’s silence about John’s Gospel as a testimony
against its genuineness; but his object, most likely, was to give in formation in
regard to those parts of the narrative whose origin was not so well known in that
part of the country; whereas John’s Gospel was fresh in every one’s memory there.

172 Had this expression occurred in John, it might have been cited as
a specimen of “Alexandrian mysticism.”